On 16 October 2016 at 21:15, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > > In message <CAAiTEH_Tn8YXXe9wYMgobeg0Fd3OdY9M4Rey6QQxh0Yg= > g0...@mail.gmail.com> > , Matthew Pounsett writes: > > > > > > But not all registries as so constrained. This is BEST current > > > practice not LOWEST COMMON DEMONINATOR practice. > > > > > > GTLD are required to remove records for abuse so removal of record > > > is expected for some conditions so it is not beyond belief that > > > they can change to include these reasons. ICANN still has a committee > > > to maintain the stability of the DNS. Nameserver behavior very > > > much affects that stability. > > > > > > > The draft can say it would be helpful to take action. The draft can't > > require action. Requiring action isn't describing a best current > > practice. That just won't fly on today's Internet. > > I've had TLD's saying they want the hard line to be there as it > backs up their stance. > > > If you want to lobby ICANN to modify the gTLD agreements, then we can > > revisit this discussion. But until those are changed the IETF has no > > business insisting on contractually prohibited actions. > > The IETF can say what is BEST practice. If gTLD's feel they cannot > meet BEST practice they will not do that. No one can make someone > follow BEST practice. > > Every time I hear "But the gTLD's can't do" I see a conflict of > interest showing. > > The IETF can recommend things that gTLD's can't do today. There > is nothing wrong with doing that. It puts the IETF's position not > gTLD operator position. >
The problem with the draft is that it doesn't recommend -- it requires. 1) It incorrectly references a non-normative RFC as if it were normative. 2) It includes imperative statements while claiming to be a description of best practice. Neither of these things are supported by your argument.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
